| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
DeadDuck
Amarr
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
   |
Posted - 2010.02.05 16:57:00 -
[91]
Let's see how it goes. In the 3 last fleet fights I was involved the node just went down. I think we have reached an all time low in terms of game performance with Dominion. But I'm also confident that if anyone can fix it's CCP.
I would be eagerly waiting for further details on this subject.
PS: Your local chat ... 
God is my Wingman |
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 19:18:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Skaarl on 05/02/2010 19:20:08
 Originally by: DeadDuck
Let's see how it goes. In the 3 last fleet fights I was involved the node just went down. I think we have reached an all time low in terms of game performance with Dominion. But I'm also confident that if anyone can fix it's CCP.
I would be eagerly waiting for further details on this subject.
PS: Your local chat ...
\
the problem with the 500:1 loss ratio in dg was CCP going to extraordinary measures to ensure that the node didnt crash, allowing the hours and hours of server backlog to clear and ships to randomly appear hours after logging to be blown up. then denying that they had any responsibility for the issues at all, and sending blanket, canned responses to all petitions in a horribly slow manner from the same GM-BOT saying we are sorry but our policy is non-interference... even tho we admit we interfered.
can you see where the angst comes in at?
edit: oh and i was at the last testing event, from what i saw they were looking at fixing something other than non-grid load. there really isnt any hope in sight that they will fix this bug.
|
Morp p'LLoran
Silver Snake Enterprise
Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 20:06:00 -
[93]
Originally by: TraderRefinerJane
Edited by: TraderRefinerJane on 04/02/2010 21:15:40
CCP, this devblog is probably the most failure I've seen from a MMO company in a while, especially with regards to your reimbursement policy. Only boot.ini tops Dominion in terms of sheer incompetence.
The logic your customers will gleam from the dev blog is elegantly simply -- you say "We Are Aware of the Problem" but we won't reimburse anything -- so why should players play your game if they die to a bug? Why play at all when all major 0.0 conflicts since Dominion have been decided by game/server bugs or people quitting the game?
No wonder CCP's customer service is a joke in the industry.
Yeesh, why don't you and all the other whiners just quit - YOU joined a fleet knowing that lags gonna be bad and knowing you'll have to jump into a big mess. You where just hoping you are the ones that would benefit - instead it was your opponents, that's the only reason you are crying like a bunch of spoiled brats here.
CCP has NEVER reimbursed - not when we lagged out with 300 in local a few years back and not know when we lag out with 1500+ in local now. Go to empire, mine, rat, play with yourself - just don't join any more fleets where you know there's gonna be lag.
Unashamed CCP fanboy and 0.0 lemming - I like the fights - lag or not. |
Shamis Orzoz
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 20:24:00 -
[94]
**** you guys.
|
A'rdan Vulpayne
Amarr
1st Praetorian Guard
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 20:31:00 -
[95]
Edited by: A''rdan Vulpayne on 05/02/2010 20:35:43
I have to deactivate game features to play a game introducing these features as making the EVE world more fun for the players ... I got guides from the developer to avoid the problems the game features causing ...
I am right now watching the all about fleet battles introducing trailer and reading this discussion ... wow
I read this: Quote:
On Jan 28th, we had a 1600 person fleet fight on Tranquility which our team monitored closely, keeping the node alive using methods that make our system admins faint. This was one of the biggest, if not the biggest,fleet fight ever in EVE (at least where the node survived the ordeal). This event allowed us to identify what was causing some of these glitches and deploy fixes live.
and think to myself, this must have been an special exception, a CCP live test ...
And then i read the words from the customer support ... they must be cripted, the parameter exception is not implemented?
I am speechless ... there was a fleet battle with one party not able to respond? How can this bee a fleet battle? Roll back and resolve this problems like it should resolved or reimburse the pilots not been part of a fleet battle ...
Why the hell I am playing this game and why the hell pilots fighting in such large fleet battles?
Recruiting! |
Costermonger
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 20:41:00 -
[96]
Whilst I am delighted that CCP now acknowledge the exsitance of lag and are working on a final solution. I am concerned about the issues raised by the Customer service statement tagged on to the end of this dev blog.
The big issue I see is the blanket reimbursment cop out, I am in the midst of a petition myself on a different toon from a 70 v 90 fleet fight which is seemingly now a "large fleet fight" I lost my ship and warped my pod, and then crashed. Only seemingly my none scrambled pod didn't warp or vanish it sat there and was killed 5 minutes after I logged.
Now I lost the fight and my ship I am fine with that. I have no problem with it and in a fleet engagement to reimburse my combat ship would perhaps not be fair on the other particpants .
My issue is with a seemingly known bug which led to the loss of my pod.
My pod was not scrambled and is unable to sway the outcome of any fight thereofe the reimbursment of the pod would effect noone but me so fairness on other players is not an issue here.
For this to be lost to a bug that CCP ARE AWARE OF and to then be told by a senior gm that the blanket policy which is carefully worded to include this little catch all
"What this means is that CCP will not be granting reimbursement for fleet fight losses."
seemingly handing the the gms the power to reject all petitions in which a fleet was involved in any way. Not just "large" fleets(Q. what defines a large fleet incidently CCP?)
If this is indeed the intention why not just remove the ships and combat section from petitions because effectivly that is what has been done here.
|
Konoch
Caldari
Azriel's Legion
Free Worlds Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 21:17:00 -
[97]
CCP its time to screw everyone over and i mean everyone....
REMOVE SOV FROM THE GAME IN TOTAL!
I'm not kidding. The *****ing the complaining the moaning its utter crap. People want all the profit and none of the work. Its really beginning to grate on my nerves even more so with the bull**** happening down in providence.
POS sites are so strong that no unit can bust them in short order even titans. Because they are so strong a group has two options. Ignore them entirely or bring overwhelming force to bear and even with overwhelming force it requires hours to bring down.
You people want to end lag and giant fleet fights? End Sovereignty end moon mining end the reason for POS's to even exist. The situation honestly can not continue as is. Since the majority of these whining fools want a fix now and continue to harass and insult people develop these games. (oh and i bet 95% of the people who play this game couldn't write a lick of code for even a ****ing Nintendo game let alone something as complex as this.) Remove it all together.
Personally i think POS sites should be downable by one battleship but that's me. You'll never see non blob fighting in any game because that's all anyone ever EVER EVER ****ING EVER DOES! Go around to every friggin MMO and most online games over the past 10 years (FPS excluded) And tell me where the best tactic is NOT to swarm with everything you ****ing have! FC's are unimaginative bastards for the most part and no one has a single clue to tactics.
End Sov. You fix a lot of problems that way and you'll never have to worry about these lag problems when people blatantly overload grids, and ignore the fleet form to help you prepare for such engagements. I'm not kidding either the insults to the game developers and coders makes me want to punch everyone's lights out. Keep *****ing about it and maybe you'll see what you don't want. Jesus Christ they actually got super carriers right instead of that near disaster by that one dev and all you people can do is continue to insult.
You'll never see large fleet fights be anything more than blob on blob because the FC's wont fight any other way. And as long as its blob on blob i don't care what CCP does there will always be lag. Speaking as someone who wants to develop these games and knows exactly what he's walking into if there's one thing i couldn't tolerate it was the utter lack of respect i see in most of the posts. I honestly don't know how some of these Devs continue to be a public part of this game.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 22:07:00 -
[98]
So in summary:
Dominion screwed things up and we dont know what we changed to do this despite the fact that its clearly some handshake issue thats been obvious since the start.
You accept its broken and even accept that you not only dont log things to level that would enable you to faiurly sort things.
You have no way to test things properly beyond testing on your customers. Who you clearly stated could end up being podded and indeed lose everything and you can go logs say no.
Conclusion:
You bunch of cnuts. You have told us nothing we already didn't know. Add more logging you lazy sods until you fix your mistakes.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.05 22:29:00 -
[99]
"This requires running Logserver.exe from the client installation folder before you start the client. Your logs are extremely important, and each bug report you submit with this information will go a long way toward bringing us closer to a resolution or fix for this issue."
SORRY YOU DONT ACCEPT EM ON THE LIVE SERVER SO ITS NOT A REAL TEST
You don't accept logs on the live server from the client and as such you seem to be adopting double standards. Either sort logging so it is accepted period or stop taking the **** out of people by explaining how peoples time can go poof in a way your fully aware of except when it comes to loss's that frankly cant be explained as valid loss's with what you do log, let alone template smack talk us in petitions.
Now when you folks go mine umpteen titans worth of minerals - hand them over to me in Jita so I can right-click and trash em and tell you my logs show nothing, once that has happened then we can talk about testing, until then I'll avoid the holes you have made and you can fill them yourself. Am I being selfish, nope, just following CCP's examples. Either way I'm not expecting nor will we ever know exactly what the problem is beyond some dumbed down version or were you get to blame BGP or sombody else.
Personaly I'd run a network analyser on the connection and pretty easily conclude its a handshake issue, you took what, how long to get that far.
Get some QA and by QA I mean Quality Assurance and not Quitely Arragant. The way you wrote that report tells us nothing new, realy I dont and yet you still dont accept the facts.
Now go mine us a 2 digit number of titans minerals worth so we the players can trash em and see how you like your time wasted.
|
Lupus Aurelius
Legio V Fidelus
Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 00:00:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Lupus Aurelius on 06/02/2010 00:03:28
Edited by: Lupus Aurelius on 06/02/2010 00:01:30
Edited by: Lupus Aurelius on 06/02/2010 00:00:24
1) CCP has a known issue with lag based on system population. This is a server/node issue.
2) People, and groups, know of this issue, and have found a way to utilize it for their benefit.
3) CCP's attempt to reinforce the node in D-G, not only left alot of people unable to fight/play the game, but also left pilots and ships in position that even hours after logging off, their ships were on the field, and being shot like fish in a barrel.
This is called an EXPLOIT, and should be treated as such by CCP until they fix the system. If an alliance can preload a system, as -A- and allies have been doing for the past 2 days, so they log on in mass with 1000 ships, tons of caps and supercaps, and they know by doing so they are literally preventing the defender from even getting in the system and loading the grid, then that alliance is EXPLOITING a game issue and mechanic.
CCP, you need to treat this as an exploit, right now it is CVA, but it could be ANY other alliance anywhere in EVE this happens to next. It affects everyone, our game play, and ablity to respond as your product is advertised to do.
You promote major fleet battles as a selling point to EVE, yet do not actually have the capablity to support them, and based on TZ and who loads more ships into a system, they can lag it so badly that NO ONE, no matter who it is, can do anything about it.
Fix your product, CCP, and ban the practice for the exploit it is.
Lupus Aurelius
Senior Consul, Fidelas Constans |
|
|
mesosorry
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 00:20:00 -
[101]
read local chat in the screeny its pretty funny
|
Diomedes Calypso
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 08:48:00 -
[102]
A TIE
A Tie !
Win Lose Tie
When some external force interferes with competitions... be it football or chess or whatever the competition is canceled... Software/hardware or whatever you'd classify the problem wasn't functioning in a way that they could deem as acceptable.
Reimbursing would be effectively calling something a tie... actually it would still be a victory for a side that was able to function and achieve its strategic goals but the scale of the impact of the disfunction would be greatly reduced.
Its right to expect that there will always be computer issues in the future.. develping a method of server to client response that both logged the state of the client and made ships connected (if you can type in local, it seems to me that the client could send a similar message to the server that things werent working correctly and the ship could be put in the invulnerable 'warp" state until the client responded correctly ?
Anyway... better to have no decision than a capricious one.
When in doubt .. call it a tie ...
|
Celia Therone
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 11:13:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Celia Therone on 06/02/2010 11:16:17
Quote:
When you see this, the worst thing you can do is to click any buttons or type in local
Perhaps have modules light up blue when you've clicked on them and then go green when the server agrees that they're working (or back to nothing if the action was invalid or times out?)
It is a bit frustrating when the client freezes up for a few seconds and you don't know if the client got your click and sent it off to the server or not so a visual cue would be really nice.
|
Serena Tiger
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 12:04:00 -
[104]
The fleet form is an exploit by itself. Coz Attackers don't fill them to be sure they are first in grid.
:(
Dominion bring us a gameplay ccp can't assume. And we are the guys paying for that. Paying in $ and isks. Many ally broken for that. There the ones who use the lag and win, and those that don t want to wait one hour loading the grid to see they already died.
Anyway thanks for the beautiful screensaver...
|
Skaarl
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 13:08:00 -
[105]
the most worrisome thing to me is that either CCP doesn't realize that they altered the D-GTMI fight by taking an active hand in keeping the node up instead of allowing it to crash and flush, thereby giving one side a HUGE advantage (i.e. the side that could actually play) and giving them an advantage in the overall campaign from that point forward due to the hugely lopsided losses, or that they don't care that their actions gave one side an advantage.
the outcomes of fights and campaigns shouldn't be based on the actions of the CCP team.
|
Konoch
Caldari
Azriel's Legion
Free Worlds Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 14:31:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Konoch on 06/02/2010 14:31:27
Originally by: Lupus Aurelius
Edited by: Lupus Aurelius on 06/02/2010 00:03:28
Edited by: Lupus Aurelius on 06/02/2010 00:01:30
Edited by: Lupus Aurelius on 06/02/2010 00:00:24
1) CCP has a known issue with lag based on system population. This is a server/node issue.
2) People, and groups, know of this issue, and have found a way to utilize it for their benefit.
3) CCP's attempt to reinforce the node in D-G, not only left alot of people unable to fight/play the game, but also left pilots and ships in position that even hours after logging off, their ships were on the field, and being shot like fish in a barrel.
This is called an EXPLOIT, and should be treated as such by CCP until they fix the system. If an alliance can preload a system, as -A- and allies have been doing for the past 2 days, so they log on in mass with 1000 ships, tons of caps and supercaps, and they know by doing so they are literally preventing the defender from even getting in the system and loading the grid, then that alliance is EXPLOITING a game issue and mechanic.
CCP, you need to treat this as an exploit, right now it is CVA, but it could be ANY other alliance anywhere in EVE this happens to next. It affects everyone, our game play, and ablity to respond as your product is advertised to do.
You promote major fleet battles as a selling point to EVE, yet do not actually have the capablity to support them, and based on TZ and who loads more ships into a system, they can lag it so badly that NO ONE, no matter who it is, can do anything about it.
Fix your product, CCP, and ban the practice for the exploit it is.
HERE HERE! I've been calling for exactly the same goddamned thing. People are lucky i'm not a GM in this game or i'd have torn alliances apart for this.
QFT
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 14:43:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Konoch
Originally by: Lupus Aurelius
You promote major fleet battles as a selling point to EVE, yet do not actually have the capablity to support them, and based on TZ and who loads more ships into a system, they can lag it so badly that NO ONE, no matter who it is, can do anything about it.
HERE HERE! I've been calling for exactly the same goddamned thing. People are lucky i'm not a GM in this game or i'd have torn alliances apart for this.
So why don't the defenders get themselves in to the system before the attackers? I guess one side is more dedicated than the other...
|
Anela Cistine
Amarr
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 14:56:00 -
[108]
Artificially keeping the node alive while people are blind, paralyzed, and unable to log out is massively unfair. Preventing people from logging out when they realize the system is unplayable is simply inexcusable.
Taking heroic measures to prevent the node from crashing when you know that hundreds of players are stuck is wrong. Dead wrong. It would honestly be better and far more fair for you to manually reboot the node every 30 minutes or every 60 minutes during bugged fleet battles. Deliberately rebooting the node would be annoying and inconvenient for everyone, but it would be better than what we have now.
Periodically rebooting a bugged node would not only get everyone unstuck, it would also give you the opportunity t reinforce the node. It would remove the current incentive for attackers to NOT notify you of a planned fleet fight.
|
L'Petit Object
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 15:06:00 -
[109]
Yay, a response!
I lol'ed pretty good to the chat in local.
Seems like a ship should not be presented in space until the server and the ship have completed their calls and have got handshakes done. All the mechanics appear to be in place for this (jump animation, ship is cloaked, ship moves and it appears.)
Why not simply:
a)monitor traffic in system in a very light manner
b) give a warning to players if they are entering a degraded system node
c) make the ship immobile, invisible, and invulnerable until the appropriate packets are exchanged
d) prioritize system loading packets over combat flight data for new entries into the system.
I said simply up there as a way of making it feel light and easy. Goodluck and bravo on reproducing a difficult glitch and getting those hamsters to run faster!
|
Olivia Wood
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 17:20:00 -
[110]
Quite simply if a large PoS / iHub / Station enters RF or SBU's are anchored the system should probably receive some automatic flag to be reinforced on the days these timers exit.
|
|
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 19:43:00 -
[111]
What else could CCP be doing now:
1) Make the jump in invulnerbility timer = 9 minutes if there is more than 300 people in the system if you say that it can take upto 8 minutes before you time out. No tactical advantage to be gained from that in these situations at all if you adopts this for 0.0 systems which have adjacent 0.0 systems or maybe all space if faction warfare a problem as well.
2) Reinforced nodes - publish a list of requests being actioned so people actualy know if the node is reinforced in that system or not. No tactical advantage and indeed would remove some unfair tactical advantages it seems.
3) Relook at the whole soverenty changes like having people deploying items near gates to take or hold severenty. that right there changed the fighting from any dozen or so moons+ to being held at a handful of jump-in gates. Make it so these deployables have to be within 1AU BUT NOT ON SAME GRID AS THE GATE and if be force people to probe them out.
4) Add additional logging, you have the spare CPU and will plicate alot of reinbursments to your satisfaction when so many are obviously reibursable but just not logged as such. If its goona get rough at least give people the chance as apposed to not giving them any hope as it now stands.
But hey I don't work at CCP, clearly 
--
Sometimes ductape is the solution, sometimes it just helps do better than before. But it is never wrong (animals excluded).
--
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 22:37:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
So why don't the defenders get themselves in to the system before the attackers?
Did it ever occur to you that defenders are the ones that react to what the attackers are doing? So they naturally are the ones who are late?
I know this is a very challenging thing for you to grasp, but in warfare it's usually the attacker who knows where to strike first. |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 00:30:00 -
[113]
Awsome!
|
Veebora
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 05:08:00 -
[114]
This is what I have to say about this:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1264912&page=1
Congratulations for the hard work for fixing the issue!
Shame on you for bad customer support!
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 06:54:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Batolemaeus
Did it ever occur to you that defenders are the ones that react to what the attackers are doing? So they naturally are the ones who are late?
I know this is a very challenging thing for you to grasp, but in warfare it's usually the attacker who knows where to strike first.
Oh, I see. Thank you for correcting my ignorance on how 0.0 sovereignty battles work. With this newfound knowledge I can properly appreciate the magnificent exploits of MM.
Not a single detail, no matter how small or insignificant, will ever again escape my notice again. Thank you, wise Batolemaeus, for the knowledge you have imparted upon me.
|
Inspiration
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 11:41:00 -
[116]
Edited by: Inspiration on 07/02/2010 11:45:59
Edited by: Inspiration on 07/02/2010 11:43:50
Just an idea that can help diagnose many problems:
Why not give the client the capability to send specific timing information back to the EVE cluster, where the health of the system can be monitored. The most crude version would be to send an compact responsiveness report on various aspects every N seconds. The value of N can even be made node specific and when trouble occurs you can fine tune the value as needed.
No more GMs telling someone, they did not see anything in their logs and you got a constantly updated picture of the cluster health and where problem cases start to build up. Combined with the monitoring tools already present for the nodes you will have awesome power.
My suggestion would be to have dedicated monitoring nodes that process these reports, thus not affecting the game nodes. But the data can be correlated and when issues start popping up, a recording can be made for later analysis, putting the node in a sort of diagnostics mode with support of the involved clients which are always ready to do so.
And of course the monitoring nodes do not need to process any other information, nor be aware of anything other then the logs. They can be quite simple and well performing without affecting any game play in a negative way.
Think about it :)
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 12:34:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Inspiration
Edited by: Inspiration on 07/02/2010 11:45:59
Edited by: Inspiration on 07/02/2010 11:43:50
Just an idea that can help diagnose many problems:
Why not give the client the capability to send specific timing information back to the EVE cluster, where the health of the system can be monitored. The most crude version would be to send an compact responsiveness report on various aspects every N seconds. The value of N can even be made node specific and when trouble occurs you can fine tune the value as needed.
No more GMs telling someone, they did not see anything in their logs and you got a constantly updated picture of the cluster health and where problem cases start to build up. Combined with the monitoring tools already present for the nodes you will have awesome power.
My suggestion would be to have dedicated monitoring nodes that process these reports, thus not affecting the game nodes. But the data can be correlated and when issues start popping up, a recording can be made for later analysis, putting the node in a sort of diagnostics mode with support of the involved clients which are always ready to do so.
And of course the monitoring nodes do not need to process any other information, nor be aware of anything other then the logs. They can be quite simple and well performing without affecting any game play in a negative way.
Think about it :)
It's a good idea in the right area.
How about the ability of the client to log events in such a way that they can be replayed in a standalone way to replay what you see. These logs are then periodicly checksummed and this checksum is sent to a seperate CCP log server (Have local country log servers if you can so one in America would be one, Iceland, UK, Australia, few others, you have offices at alot of locations already and logging is seperate and non-dependant upon gameplay in this form of usage as well as being less impacting upon the clients and other positive reasons). Now the logs could be signed via a public key with CCP having the private key and then every x seconds a checksum of that periods logs is checksumed and the checksum sent to the logserver which then signs it with another public/private key that only ccp knows along with a internal timestamp and the return hash is sent back to the client to act as a solid form of proving said logs on the client but also acting as the return handshack acknowledgment that the log checksum was recieved and processed. You also have the option for realtime logging but the method outlined would be sufficient to allow a form of trusted local logs with no impact upon gameservers as they stand currently. Upgraded version of the logserver could accomodate this could it not and as such be worked upon independant of the game code. There are more benifits to this and could also open-up the ultimate potentual for user video's but beyond that would also allow:
- Allow the comparision between people in the system to actualy see the differences from what clients do and what other clients see and eventualy why.
Allow CCP to have the foundations to perform fleet tests in a automated test rig without the need to depend upon players goodwill to download test clients and rearange there lives for post panic test events.
Give the potentual to have logging at a level that will make alot of petitions to be automated and indeed potentualy automaticly raised and processed in a proactive way and above all in a fair that installs more fairness and mutual respect.
The bottom line **** happend and thats fine as long as its acknowledged and a level of fairness prevails to accomodate the ****. Alas currently the whole way of dealing with petitions is what is failing CCP and more so there relationships with there customers overall. [b]It's simple maths, fairer petition handerling == happy customers and more income for CCP. If only they did the maths.[
|
Droog 1
Black Rise Inbreds
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 13:03:00 -
[118]
Dear CCP,
Testing should be done on the test server.
|
Kaapro Tatu
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 17:07:00 -
[119]
Instead of having sovereignty fights over one system, make constellations affect the sovereignty of the single systems belonging to the constellation. Battles would have to be spread throughout the constellation instead of in one system and would add another dimension to strategy and spread the load out.
|
evsNOTeve
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 19:10:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
So why don't the defenders get themselves in to the system before the attackers? I guess one side is more dedicated than the other...
because Russian timezones have a huge advantage.....when dt ends for them they are home from school/work already, while for euros they are still in school/work, and for americans theyre either at school/work or getting ready to go...so its much easier for russian timezones to grab hold of a system first right after dt (this is not including weekends of course)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |